Songbirds with 800mm PF and Z 1.4 TC

[RichF]

Thank goodness I found this thread. After reading the Photography Life article I was about ready to hang myself. I was thinking if I was THAT wrong about what I've been seeing from the lens I should probably pack it in. Luckily I tend to procrastinate so just didn't yet get around to looking for the rope. Now I can just forget about it. Wow. That was close.

Don’t put the rope away yet

 

[JAS]

I don't know. I don't have a dog in the fight because I shoot Canon, but I went and read the review to see what the fuss was about. Honestly it seems like a fair review looking at it with no emotion or desire for one to be better and no need to defend a buying decision. The sharpness comparison section especially, not only the objective Imatest scores but the side by side real world shots from the two lenses. The old 800 is clearly clearer. By a small amount, but noticable to my eye when they are side by side. Given the offset in price and weight, I'd say the Z was still a heck of a value, but if sharpness at any cost in money or weight was the only criteria....

Understand your perspective. However, other highly skilled and qualified individuals are showing real world results that differ with the review article. When one has such variation in opinions, it is necessary to carefully examine the apparently conflicting information and seek to explain the differences. That is the ongoing discussion.

 

[BLev65]

Bruce would you agree that most any lens in those conditions would yield the same results?

I have found that the negative impact of atmospheric particles increases with increasing focal length. I generally shoot the 800PF side by side with the 400mm f4.5S. Each lens is on a different body so I can shift quickly depending on subject distance and image goals. Under similar situations, I have found that my 800PF is more prone to softness due to atmospheric conditions than the 400S... maybe this is due to the resolution difference between my cameras (Z9 + 800PF v Z6ii + 400S), or to the more "compressed" nature of a longer focal length.
To be completely transparent, my 800PF arrived during the winter and I have yet to use it on a sunny day or at temperatures above 32 degrees F... I am looking forward to seeing how it performs during the spring migration!

 

[bleirer]

The sample images in the last section were all quite excellent. It was only when they showing the side by side with the $16k lens that you see a small difference. But there was a difference, as I'd expect there to be when you could get almost 3 of the z for the same price. I'd be more like 'look how good this $6500 lens holds up next to the big boy'

 

[NorthernFocus]

I have found that the negative impact of atmospheric particles increases with increasing focal length...

Well of course. There are more particles and/or air currents between lens and subject. In your example for a given field of view twice as much "stuff". It' simply how much air is between camera and subject.

 

[BillW]

Well of course. There are more particles and/or air currents between lens and subject. In your example for a given field of view twice as much "stuff". It' simply how much air is between camera and subject.

Are there more particles? Yes, if you choose the photographer‘s position so the size of the subject in photos from the two lenses is the same. In that case, I assume you’d be roughly twice as far from the subject when using the 800 mm lens (so twice as much atmosphere and two times as many particles) than when using the 400 mm lens.

Assuming the same position for the photographer and subject, so the subject is smaller with the shorter lens, the amount of atmosphere and particles between them would be the same. But the particles (and their effect on details) would be less magnified by the shorter lens. So probably less noticeable here too.

In the latter case, maybe the atmospheric effect would be similar if you cropped the image from the shorter lens to match the FOV of the longer lens.

 

[Whiskeyman]

I have found that the negative impact of atmospheric particles increases with increasing focal length. I generally shoot the 800PF side by side with the 400mm f4.5S. Each lens is on a different body so I can shift quickly depending on subject distance and image goals. Under similar situations, I have found that my 800PF is more prone to softness due to atmospheric conditions than the 400S... maybe this is due to the resolution difference between my cameras (Z9 + 800PF v Z6ii + 400S), or to the more "compressed" nature of a longer focal length.
To be completely transparent, my 800PF arrived during the winter and I have yet to use it on a sunny day or at temperatures above 32 degrees F... I am looking forward to seeing how it performs during the spring migration!

Are you shooting side-by-side with the same subject at the same distances? Or are you comparing images where the subject is the samesize , or nearly so, in the viewfinder?

 

[NorthernFocus]

...In the latter case, maybe the atmospheric effect would be similar if you cropped the image from the shorter lens to match the FOV of the longer lens.

Any comparison of different focal lengths without normalizing to the same FOV are pointless. The only question is whether the FOV is achieved by changing distance or by cropping. If by cropping then the same number particles/turbulence is between camera and subject and occupies the same amount of the image therefore obscures the same level of detail. If the FOV is achieved by halving the distance(in the case of 400mm vs 800mm per above) then there's half as much "stuff" in the way. So yeah, less negative impact on the image.

 

[Mark Garfinkel]

As Steve indicated, it's about what you're happy with.

 

[JoelKlein]

The original 800 is so heavy, that the type of images capable with the lighter PF is in its own territory. Let’s assume the original 800 is noticeably sharper, But its a heavy blob standing on 3 feet is a greater limitation to get a shot in the first place, vs. a handhold-able 800 with less sharpness (if it is).

 

[calcal]

Well I didn't read the article because this lens was not even on my wishlist. So little time, so much to read. But then I opened this thread, took a look at Eric's pictures, oh no is my wishlist about to become 1 item longer?! Maybe I'll start slow and get a bird feeder first! Thanks for sharing such inspiring pics!

 

[fcotterill]

With due respect to cluttering Eric's thread with a different set of images, I suspect the following are an apt illustration of the challenges of how local atmospheric conditions can trash the output of the most high quality telephoto prime.
This morning I planned to set up the tripod and 800's, with Z9 and all the TC's, to photograph my cats after breakfast - around 0900. I still need more examples at somewhat longer distances... Two of the 3 cats had taken up an ideal position on an outside table, 35m from the tripod (the intervening substrate is cropped kikuyu lawn grass). Of course the elder gray cat had to follow me down the garden - curious as to what was happening. At least the ginger stayed prone....
I snapped a few frames as he closed to the MFD of the 800 f5.6E - within 10m. But the rest of the images taken with respective TC14's and TC2's at 35m are worthless. On this warming day, Heat haze had already rubbished my careful plans. Bear in mind, mist and termperature inversions etc can have similar impacts when subjects require 800mm and even shorter focal lengths. The problems increase steeply with subject distance.

All exported as jpg from HE*RAW with Nikon StudioNX, with no PP except exposure adjustment where necessary. 100% crops where pertinent.

To provide a benchmark, the following portrait of an inquisitive Helmeted guinea fowl [ISO2200 +1 stop, f6.3, 1/1600) - handheld VR-On - is a representative example of the quality of images out of my 800 PF on the Z9.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Two examples of heat haze with the TC14 on the F and 800mm Nikkor (not bothering with 100% crops):

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

800mm f5.6E FL + TC14 III @ 9m captured within the above sequences

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

100% crop:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[fcotterill]

African Hoopoe with 800mm f5.6E FL+TC14 III, Z9, ISO5000 at 26m - on beanbag [no PP]. I shared some examples last year of images taken with the 800 PF and ZTC’s :
https://bcgforums.com/index.php?thr...r-african-mammals-and-birds.17190/post-191231

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

100% crop

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

This example is earlier in the morning some weeks ago [no PP]: Z9, 800 f5.6E FL+TC2 @25m

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

100% crop

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Test image the day after the lens arrived.... Z9, 800 f6.3S PF + ZTC2 1/2000, ISO2200, f13 @approx 16m. This was processed in LR

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[DaveR]

Thank goodness I found this thread. After reading the Photography Life article I was about ready to hang myself. I was thinking if I was THAT wrong about what I've been seeing from the lens I should probably pack it in. Luckily I tend to procrastinate so just didn't yet get around to looking for the rope. Now I can just forget about it. Wow. That was close.

Lmao. I've been very happy with the results using Z800 + 1.4 TC. A bit less so with the 2.0TC. Some great images there EB.

 

[Rookie Roy]

Thank you Eric for this useful information!

 

[BLev65]

RE heat haze and particulate matter... my last post was a response to a reply to my first post, but I am adding the following for clarification.
1. I don't do lens tests. In 2018 I did one semi-controlled test that compared the 200-400VR to the 200-500VR to the 500PF. The test is probably my most visited blog link, and while these things attract viewers doing Google Searches, when done in outside, they are prone to so many uncontrollable variables that your conclusions must be footnoted with caveats.
2. Clearly the actual number of particles in the air at a given moment in time between you and the subject will be the same regardless of the lens you are using. Just because I hold a 400mm lens to my eye, I do not suddenly have fewer particles.... Ok, well technically there are fewer particles between the front element of the 800mm lens and the subject than the 400mm lens... why you ask? The 800mm lens is almost twice as long and displaces the particles that would have been present if the 400mm lens was used
3. My statement about apparent differences in softness is a statement of fact where I was shooting a similar subject (swans) at similar distances from me. As the swans fly over misty ice and water, those shot with the 400mm lens appeared crisper than those with the 800mm lens. OF COURSE this is due to the fact that one image is a smaller bird in a wider frame where the details of feather and beak are naturally less obvious. By using the 800mm lens, I was trying to capture more of the bird details than the bird habitat. If I were to crop the 400mm lens to the 800mm field of view, the image would have been super mushy... much worse than the 800mm in the same condition.
4. My point... One needs to be aware of the atmospheric conditions if they intend to use an 800mm lens to capture distant objects. While our goal is to pluck details from those distant birds, mammals, or plants the physics often gets in the way.

As Eric has shown, when you use the 800PF in a way you can cut the distance between the lens and subject, the results are nothing short of exquisite. I am posting two pictures of Long Eared Owls shot in 25 degree weather. Here I was relatively close to the bird. The first image is a DX crop from the Z9 w/ little processing and the 2nd is an FX crop of the same bird on a different perch that it used while hunting voles... There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 800PF it is a brilliant lens... however, like any other tool, one must recognize how to leverage its strengths and avoid its weaknesses.
cheers,
bruce
DX crop

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

FX (no crop)

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[EricBowles]

Any comparison of different focal lengths without normalizing to the same FOV are pointless. The only question is whether the FOV is achieved by changing distance or by cropping. If by cropping then the same number particles/turbulence is between camera and subject and occupies the same amount of the image therefore obscures the same level of detail. If the FOV is achieved by halving the distance(in the case of 400mm vs 800mm per above) then there's half as much "stuff" in the way. So yeah, less negative impact on the image.

I think there is room for both perspectives. On one hand, I'd like to see the same subject with a similar output size even though that may mean different cropping. But I don't want to evaluate a distant subject with haze if that is not applied to all lenses. This answers the question on which produces the highest quality view of the subject. But for evaluating pure optical performance, you would want the same field of view and would move closer when using a shorter lens. So the use cases are:

• 800mm PF with minimal cropping so the subject fills the frame
• 400mm f/4.5 cropped deeper to fill the frame the same as the 800mm
• 400mm f/4.5 moving closer so the field of view matches the original 800mm PF with minimal cropping
• Note - there is a difference in aperture shooting each wide open, so you could stop down one or both lenses to look at whether stopping down improves sharpness - but that has implications on shutter speed and ISO choices. All images should be made in bright enough light that ISO is not an issue or contributing factor to lower resolution.
• All of the above with the 1.4 TC

I chose feather detail as the benchmark of evaluating sharpness. Feathers do vary by bird, but it provides fine detail. I found the feathers making up the eye ring of a bluebird were ideal. Ideally you might have 1-2 feathers that you use for testing. Animal hair could be used in a similar manner - especially if you had a stuffed mammal to use as a target.

The other question is about how you process the image. If you solely rely on in-camera settings, you would need the same picture control choice and noise reduction. But that may not be optimal for each lens and could under or over sharpen, so you might process optimally in a normal manner in order to bring the best possible out of each file using a given editing program.

 

[DavidT]

Yeah, I think that Photography Life article article has stirred up a lot of uncertainty. I think they either had a poor copy of the lens or that the tester maybe wasn't overly epxreeinced with long glass. My experience with the lens mimics yours - it's very sharp and I have zero issue using it.

I just googled the article since I hadn’t seen it. I noticed the authors bio at the end states he’s a macro and landscape photographer from Denver.

If that’s his focus it’s likely he’s not a regular long glass user. Big lenses take a different skill set to use properly. Big glass and high MP will quickly highlight poor skill.

 

[Dick Blystone]

All I know is that I'm very happy with my 800PF images and in the end that's what matters

Wait... happiness is the goal? I must have missed that video...

 

[jer]

@JoelKlein Love that deer crop on the tree!

 

[jer]

@EricBowles Great lens experiment and results! What beautiful birds you have at your feeder!

 

[Larry Shuman]

Here are 2 I got a couple of days early last week. Since the Z9 is to darn expensive I use the D3s and my 600mm F:4g VR and flash for these images. I bought the D3s 2 years ago for only $800 and had only 19,400 images

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[JAS]

With all of this discussion, I finally had a few minutes of civil weather to try my new Z 800. Here are a few local squirrel photos, since the birds were not co-operating today. All shots handheld - and I shake a lot so there were many misses and uncropped. Quickly and lightly processed in LrC.

I would like to point out a critical item to remekmber when using this lens - DoF will be quite shallow for close subjects. My little DoF app says at f/6.3 and 33 feet/10m the DoF will be about 2 inches/5cm and at f/9 about 3 inches/8cm (haldf in front and half behind the point of focus. These photos were shot at about 33ft/10m and f/9. Plesase note the limited infocus areas on the shots where the squirrel is at an angle and the more infocus on the broadside shot.

Anyway, I like what I see and plan to practice a lot more in the coming days before we head to Kearney in March.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[MatthewK]

Got my 800PF into the field today for the first time, and was able to photograph some of the resident winter birds (Chickadees, Nuthatch and Juncos). Needless to say, this lens is beyond sharp, seems a little bit sharper than the best my 500PF could produce, and thus I couldn't be happier with it. Even though I don't think it'll come through looking as sharp as it does on my home monitor, thought I'd share a 100% crop, with only default LR sharpening applied:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[JoelKlein]

Gorgeous Shots one by one, I’m so glad that many people finally got their hands on the spectacular 800mm pf lens